Always a lack of evidence when someone makes a claim like this. Someone appears on the forum. Makes 1 post like "I have discovered how to change lead into gold. Come to my site and pay me $5,000 and I will show you how to do it." And then you never hear from that person again.

I'm not making excuses for trading gurus who charge fees and don't offer statements, but it is my understanding that providing them opens up a legal can of worms with all sorts of potential liability from disgruntled customers who fail to replicate the performance.

Maybe this helps explain why so few do other than the obvious reasons.

CTAs must provide trading data as specified by law because they manage money. Educational advisories don't have this restriction. Apparently there are cases where vendors have been sued or threatened with litigation so to avoid the hassle, they don't provide statements.

But if I were in the business, I wouldn't go any further than posting daily room calls on the Internet with all the legal and regulatory mumbo jumbo wording.

The risk reward relationship for providing actual statements is not attractive because a smart lawyer could make a case they induced the student to buy the course. So liability theoretically could include the students losses. Legal costs, lawsuits, bad press. What vendor in their right mind would open a pandora's box like that?

Based on your logic posting daily rooms calls or even hinting that the system is profitable would open up the same legal issues.

You and your CTA are completely off track here. This is the sort of unsubstantiated rhetoric that you hear from victims and vendors. If you can provide a single case where a vendor was sued over genuine statements I'll reconsider my opinion.

Perhaps your right of posting results also, and now that I think about it, I wouldn't do that either. In fact, the less representations of having success the better.

In a world where MacDonalds gets sued by people who claim it made them obese (and Macdonalds has deep pockets) it is prudent to err on the side of safety. If we were talking about earning great fees or large sums of money than maybe the risk reward would swing to providing statements, but I don't think anyone would pay more than the going rate for these vendors which is in the $6000 range. At that price, it makes no sense at least to my way of thinking to stick your neck out for what might only be a nominal gain in new business.

These vendors seem to be doing fairly well without going the extra yard. And besides, let's assume that no vendor has in fact been sued because of statements. (If he were, it wouldn't be solely based on statements but other representations, as a good ambulance chaser knows to how to make a hot dog with all the toppings.) What vendor in their right mind would want to be the cutting floor for this type of unprecedented lawsuit?

As an example of trying to avoid legal action at all costs, reread what Blade did at Tsunami. He tried to close every legal loophole and I bet this won't stop him from getting sued.

From what I have seen I have to agree with you that the vendors seem to be doing fairly well but the disturbing fact is how they go about doing it. Take a look at Tsunami Trading (allegedly non-working system) and Trading Zoo employing the underhand deceptive tactics of ahk.

If you make comments and excuses for vendors not providing statements then the danger is that newbies might believe what you are saying (which you can't substantiate) and not ask for statements - which they should.

This thread is about "do statements provide value?" and not "what are the legal implications of providing statements?"

The results speak for themselves. This is how the fund managers of the world operate. If they get good results then people give them more money to manage. Why shouldn't trading system vendors operate in the same manner? If fund manager results are so useful then why don't trading statements from vendors provide the same value?